Sounds like some not so thinly veiled statements (I'd say threats, but to who?) there. I had hoped there was some chance of reviving this deal, but from the tone in the letter, doesn't sound like it.

So the new jobs will be outside the city, and no earnings tax collected. Smart thinkin' Jim and Darlene!

Hudlin Park? I thought this was about Forest Park.

The official name of that parkland is Hudlin Park. When some argued that the land technically wasn't Forest Park they meant more than just its physical isolation from the rest of the park. I think the city may have really screwed the pooch on this one.

No, the unofficial name for that park is Hudlin Park. Among the City's 105 maintained parks (and handful of other parks owned by the City, but maintained by others), there are City parks officially named Handy, Hickey, and Hyde -- but not Hudlin. The space in question is officially . . . Forest Park, albeit a part of Forest Park on top of a BJC parking garage.

Hide this letter from Charlie Dooley - I bet the first call to BJC was from him, courtin' them (the region's largest employer) to St. Louis County.

I just made-up my mind - Jim Shrewsbury you lost my vote.

Andy should stop signing his name "Cindy". Perhaps that was part of the confusion about the deal. Or maybe he was of two minds about trying to railroad the deal through before the people could speak. He must not be very confident of how good a deal it is to give up before he gets a chance to put it before the voters for a yea or nay if the referendum passes. A great leader, rather than a manipulative one, would have said "We look forward to joining the city to make our case to the voters if the referendum passes. We think it is a good deal for everyone, and believe they will too."

Sounds to me like BJC still wants build there if possible. I guess we'll see just how much they want it in the coming weeks.